Dyson Sucks Upward Unlicensed Copyist
In the High Court's Chancery Division end Tuesday, inward Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd [2004] EWHC 2981 (Ch), Mr Justice Isle of Mann handed Dyson a welcome victory in its battle against unlicensed spare parts sellers.
Dyson made vacuum cleaners; Qualtex supplied spare parts for domestic appliances that were duplicates of the master copy parts. Dyson sued, alleging infringement of unregistered pattern correct inward a position out of vacuum cleaner spare parts including wand handles, cable winders as well as brush bars. It was accepted that parts of each of those designs was covered past times the ‘must fit’ as well as ‘must match’ exceptions educate out inward s.213(3) of the Copyright, Designs as well as Patents Act 1988, but Dyson maintained that bits of pattern for each production did non autumn inside either of those exceptions. Qualtex admitted that all the parts were copied but argued that (i) many of the relevant designs had been copied from elsewhere, (ii) the ‘must fit’ as well as ‘must match’ exceptions applied to pregnant areas of most of the parts, (iii) the parts of the designs that were non excluded were commonplace as well as that (iv) unopen to aspects of the designs were mere surface decoration. In addition, it relied on estoppel, or on waiver or acquiescence, on Dyson's part.
Mann J allowed Dyson's infringement claim.
* Qualtex clearly infringed the unregistered pattern correct and failed inward almost all instances to works life that the statutory defense forcefulness applied.
* There could survive no estoppel unless Dyson had known of an encouraged Qualtex at an appropriate corporate level. Qualtex could non inward regulation rely on noesis on the role of, as well as encouragement by, mortal who would non survive of an appropriate seniority to bind Dyson. On the evidence, no senior Dyson knew of Qualtex's activities earlier 2002, nor could Qualtex examine Dyson had done anything capable of amounting to whatever score of encouragement.
notes that defences to infringement of IP rights that are based on estoppel are raised from fourth dimension to fourth dimension but hardly e'er succeed on the evidence. Do they actually add together upwards anything to a greater extent than than petty nuisance value?
Dyson made vacuum cleaners; Qualtex supplied spare parts for domestic appliances that were duplicates of the master copy parts. Dyson sued, alleging infringement of unregistered pattern correct inward a position out of vacuum cleaner spare parts including wand handles, cable winders as well as brush bars. It was accepted that parts of each of those designs was covered past times the ‘must fit’ as well as ‘must match’ exceptions educate out inward s.213(3) of the Copyright, Designs as well as Patents Act 1988, but Dyson maintained that bits of pattern for each production did non autumn inside either of those exceptions. Qualtex admitted that all the parts were copied but argued that (i) many of the relevant designs had been copied from elsewhere, (ii) the ‘must fit’ as well as ‘must match’ exceptions applied to pregnant areas of most of the parts, (iii) the parts of the designs that were non excluded were commonplace as well as that (iv) unopen to aspects of the designs were mere surface decoration. In addition, it relied on estoppel, or on waiver or acquiescence, on Dyson's part.
Dyson: "Anyone who copies my parts is a sucker"
Mann J allowed Dyson's infringement claim.
* Qualtex clearly infringed the unregistered pattern correct and failed inward almost all instances to works life that the statutory defense forcefulness applied.
* There could survive no estoppel unless Dyson had known of an encouraged Qualtex at an appropriate corporate level. Qualtex could non inward regulation rely on noesis on the role of, as well as encouragement by, mortal who would non survive of an appropriate seniority to bind Dyson. On the evidence, no senior Dyson knew of Qualtex's activities earlier 2002, nor could Qualtex examine Dyson had done anything capable of amounting to whatever score of encouragement.
notes that defences to infringement of IP rights that are based on estoppel are raised from fourth dimension to fourth dimension but hardly e'er succeed on the evidence. Do they actually add together upwards anything to a greater extent than than petty nuisance value?
Vacuum cleaners as well as the performing arts here
Comments
Post a Comment